The purpose of copyright
I've made it no secret that I've had a lot of issues with the current rules and regulations of copyright. I'll admit right now that most of my works are derivative in some way, and I'm not here to argue fair use. I will say that I find great joy in making video reviews of product, writing scripts to spoof movies, and lately combining previous images in photo manipulations. The latter of which I can't show you, mostly because many places are unclear about the license of their images and it's hard to figure out if you need a model release for a person who is really the culmination of five different people. I could post here and fight under the banner of fair use once again, but I'm not particularly interested in doing that. Instead I'm interested in talking about the purpose of copyright law. In purpose, copyright law is to entice creators to create more, knowing that no one else can profit on their work. I don't need to argue the reality of how it's used. Right now, in the United States, your work is protected until you die +75 years... because zombies need to make an honest living too. The Walt Disney company lobbied to extend us to the current status... in 1998. Over 30 years after Walt Disney was dead. Their reason for doing this was to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Also, this act removed things from the public domain. I think it might be a controversial opinion when I say that no creator needs their works to be protected by copyright after they die. Does anyone anywhere create more art so they can make more money after they die? If they are, I'd like to know how those plans are working out for them. What I'm trying to say that the current length of the copyright restriction does not entice people to create new works. Right now, it's 2015. If you subtract 75, you get 1940. That's not the date that whatever was made. If the creator of the work had died in 1940 or earlier, then it's no longer protected by copyright. For example, Walt Disney died in 1966. If you want to use one of the works he created personally, like Mickey Mouse, you will have to wait until 2041. You know, provided Disney doesn't manage to get another extension... which totally won't happen /sarcasm. This can be a problem if the people who are owning old works aren't doing anything with them. I mean just look at the current landscape of video games. The people who own the IP of Banjo-Kazooie aren't doing anything with it, and they won't be able to until at least 2073, and anyone who would be enticed to use that source material would have most likely forgotten about it. And you've probably noticed another problem. How exactly does "lifetime of the author" apply to things created by teams or companies? The set date? 120 years after corporate authorship, or 95 years after publication, whichever date is earlier. So no, Banjo-Kazooie doesn't enter public domain in 2073, instead it will take 20 more years until 2093. I picked Banjo-Kazooie in particular for a reason. It is highly likely that Microsoft isn't going to make another Banjo-Kazooie game. And because they won't, no one will (not a spiritual successor, an actual Banjo-Kazooie game) until 2093. Legally, at least. This does not entice people to create more. In fact, even with these LENGTHY times, companies try to be sneaky and claim copyright on things they should no longer own. The song "Happy Birthday to You" is known by many as the oldest copyrighted thing... ever. It was made... in 1893. Add 120, and you get 2013. But because one of the authors died in 1946, depending on how it was published (which no one really knows) it may or may not be in the public domain between now and next year. 1893-2016 something technically gets copyright protection. This is 123 years (longer than the longest person who ever lived well... lived, for the record). This is in defensible. No does it get people to create more. It just allows people who had nothing to do with the song's creation to make money off of eateries and movies that want to use it. Not to mention that there are plenty of IP trolls who buy up random IP's just to limit other people from using what should be freely be usable. Yes fair use exists, but we all know how fun that can be, right? And that problem cuts both ways in an issue. Because fair use is undefined, companies can not only shoot down reviews they don't like but jackasses can flip someone else's image and start selling it. Fair use needs to be defined, properly. In a court of law, but no one wants to do because they're afraid they'll get burned. Creative commons, or "copyleft" also has its own problems too. Someone finds a random photograph and places it in their gallery, saying that it's creative commons. You use that in your work, but the original owner comes up from nowhere and sues both you and the person who stole it from him. With the internet, you don't know who originally made whatever project that they've placed under creative commons. And unfortunately, if someone feels that their work is transformative enough from the work you placed in creative commons, they might fight under fair use. I like creative commons, and it's a better agreement than the "you use my stuff and I sue you until a century after I'm dead" system we have now, but it's just that--an agreement. We need to refine the copyright law as it is. Or start from scratch. For one, I don't think copyrights are something that should be bought and sold. Leased, sure, but the original creator should always own the original copyright. Unfortunately I don't think that copyright will ever go in the... correct direction. A lot of people profit on the current system, and some of their hobbies include lobbying. I'll leave you with a story. In 1953, a man called John Cage composed a song called 4'33. He died in 1992. So, in 2067, this specific song will reach the public domain. This song is 4 minutes and 33 seconds of absolute silence. And yes, he did actually perform this thing live and people came and payed money to see it. Here's the thing, whenever you perform this in full or in part, you're technically infringing copyright. Luckily the guy wasn't insane enough to start suing people over shutting up (he wanted to challenge the definition of music instead) but it was totally in his right to do so. Since whenever you create something, it's immediately copyrighted basically forever, someone actually owns the copyright to silence. What terms do you think that copyright should include, because as it is, it's nothing more than a giant joke. For me, whether I create something of significance or not, it is my will that all of my works will enter public domain upon my death. Category:Miscellaneous